Author
Topic: Is the doctrine of the Trinity pagan in origin? (Read 9277 times)

One thing that keeps coming up in discussions about Christianity is the claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is of pagan origin. This claim is made by some Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, and even atheists. Can anyone point me to some *thorough* refutations of this?

I can't really point you to anything, but I know there was some recent discussion about it here. The thing is, people are always making claims such as this in an effort to discredit Christianity. It's nothing new.

if you read the books of job, genesis and exodus, you will see that worship of God the creator predates paganism by a long, long way.so if the pagans kept a few truths among the rest of the untrue parts of the religion and then we show them the truth, it doesn't mean we copied them.God Himself handed down the traditions to adam and eve, and so worship of God was practiced before abraham.people handed down their beliefs to their children, so it is not surprising that there are elements of truth in all religions.

romans chapters 1-5 show how the 'pagans' can see God in creation and in their own consciences (we are all made in the image of God) and so this should lead them to worship the true Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, if they look with an open mind.

It's like any science. The Trinity is a fact and people stumbled into it on ocasion, specially those who looked hard. But like with any complex phenomena we don't really understand it perfectly until the proper tools are invented. Magnetism was talked about by the ancients but its properties and relation with electricity were discovered only in the 19th century.Likewise with the Trinity. What it really is was fuly revealed only in Christ's baptism. So all the theories of the few religions that conceived of three gods governing the universe had to be corrected in face of the blatant self-exposition of the Triune God in that event.

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

I really believe there was a concept of Trinity held by some Hebrews before the birth of Jesus Christ like this ex. from the book of Enoch: (see passsage 48:2, I tried to bold (but could not) the terms,"Son of Man", "Lord of spirits", & "Ancient of Days". The translation is the 1st English translation done by Anglican Bishop Richard Laurence & some have disputed parts of his translation like this one but yet it is accepted as overall sound but the pre Christian aspects just cannot seem to be true according to critics (sigh).

Enoch Chapter 48Enoch 48:1 In that place I beheld a fountain of righteousness, which never failed, encircled by many springs of wisdom. Of these all the thirsty drank, and were filled with wisdom, having their habitation with the righteous, the elect, and the holy.

Enoch 48:2 In that hour was this Son of man invoked before the Lord of spirits, and his name in the presence of the Ancient of days.

Enoch 48:3 Before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of heaven were formed, his name was invoked in the presence of the Lord of spirits. A support shall he be for the righteous and the holy to lean upon, without falling; and he shall be the light of nations.

Enoch 48:4 He shall be the hope of those whose hearts are troubled. All, who dwell on earth, shall fall down and worship before him; shall bless and glorify him, and sing praises to the name of the Lord of spirits.

Enoch 48:5 Therefore the Elect and the Concealed One existed in his presence, before the world was created, and for ever.

Enoch 48:6 In his presence he existed, and has revealed to the saints and to the righteous the wisdom of the Lord of spirits; for he has preserved the lot of the righteous, because they have hated and rejected this world of iniquity, and have detested all its works and ways, in the name of the Lord of spirits.

Enoch 48:7 For in his name shall they be preserved; and his will shall be their life. In those days shall the kings of the earth and the mighty men, who have gained the world by their achievements, become humble in countenance.

Enoch 48:8 For in the day of their anxiety and trouble their souls shall not be saved; and they shall be in subjection to those whom I have chosen.

Enoch 48:9 I will cast them like hay into the fire, and like lead into the water. Thus shall they burn in the presence of the righteous, and sink in the presence of the holy; nor shall a tenth part of them be found.

Enoch 48:10 But in the day of their trouble, the world shall obtain tranquillity.

Enoch 48:11 In his presence shall they fall, and not be raised up again; nor shall there be any one to take them out of his hands, and to lift them up: for they have denied the Lord of spirits, and his Messiah. The name of the Lord of spirits shall be blessed.

Not any more than three points making a single plane makes the Holy Trinity mathematical.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

What's interesting is that Elohim never says (as far as I know) that He would never, or could never, incarnate in human form.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

What's interesting is that Elohim never says (as far as I know) that He would never, or could never, incarnate in human form.

That's because God changed.

Isn't Elohim the plural form of God?

Yes, technically, it's the plural of "Eloha" (the form which is used a lot in the Book of Job), but I think Elohim always refers to Himself (in Hebrew) in the first person singular, "I".

On the other hand, in the Qur'an, Allah uses "We" to refer to Allah-self, but the word "Allah" is singular, being a contraction of "al-ilaha", "the Deity". The Arabic "ilaha" is cognate to the Hebrew "eloha".

Don't confuse "eloha" with the Hawaiian greeting "aloha".

« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 11:13:31 AM by Jetavan »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

One thing that keeps coming up in discussions about Christianity is the claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is of pagan origin. This claim is made by some Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, and even atheists. Can anyone point me to some *thorough* refutations of this?

Was there a time when God didn't have a Word or Spirit?

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

And didnt our Lord Jesus Christ himself say:"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"(Matthew 28:19)

Well the doubters can always come back and say the Gospel also was pagan in origin.

I just posed on this on monachos.net. I don't know if you are the same person who asked it there but I will post my answer.

There is no indication that any of the known pagan religions of the day had any sort of Trinitarian formulation, at least not the religions that Christianity was exposed to. Someone over there mentioned Hinduism, but I don't think that there is any indication that Christianity with the exception of the Nasrani had any exposure much less influence from Hinduism. If there had been any influence, I'm fairly certain that there are much larger aspects of Hinduism that would have carried over as opposed to their theological construct of the Trinity.

The main religions that I can think of that could have (not saying they did) influenced Christianity would have been:

Roman Pantheon and subsidiaries:Cult of SaturnaliaCult of MithrasCult of Sol Invictus

Greek Pantheon and subsidiary:Cult of Hercules

Egyptian Diety worship and subsidary:Cult of Isis

Cult of Cybele

Jewish Faith

Zoroastrianism

Various Gnostic groups, many with origins in Christianity

I can't think of any others, but I'm sure there might be. None of these listed have any significant Trinitarian formulation.

I think the claim of "pagan" Trinitarian origins has two parts: (1) the claim that the idea of Three Persons who are equally God has a "pagan" origin; and (2) the more general claim that the idea that the Divine Person (Creator of Cosmos) can become, or has become, human, has "pagan" origin.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I think the claim of "pagan" Trinitarian origins has two parts: (1) the claim that the idea of Three Persons who are equally God has a "pagan" origin; and (2) the more general claim that the idea that the Divine Person (Creator of Cosmos) can become, or has become, human, has "pagan" origin.

I think the claim of "pagan" Trinitarian origins has two parts: (1) the claim that the idea of Three Persons who are equally God has a "pagan" origin; and (2) the more general claim that the idea that the Divine Person (Creator of Cosmos) can become, or has become, human, has "pagan" origin.

Spermatikos Logos

The Trinity does have some huge differences with neoplatonism though. And even then the founder of neoplatonism, Ammonius Saccas, was a christian.

There are a lot of people that give all kinds of throw downs on Nicea and the Trinity. They somehow morph that Constantine was a pagan and it developed into the trinitarian doctrine.

However, they are heavily mistaken. Tertullian was the Bishop of Carthage (I think it was almost 125 years) before the council of Nicea. He merely coined the phrase "Trinity".

The consensus of the Trinity existed with almost all of the early Christian writers.

Even in our Scriptures John 1:1In the beginning was the WORD The WORD was WITH GOD The WORD IS GOD (the word that is & with God is God)....Later.... The WORD became FLESH (So the word that IS god, and is WITH God, became Flesh)

At his baptism "The Holy Spirit..."

There are Many references to the "CONCEPT" of the trinity in many early Christian writings.... Please people correct me if I'm wrong, but I really do think Tertullian came up with the "trinity" "Tri-une" term.

What refutation can be made to a claim which is made up in the first place? 100 percent of the time whenever you run into someone who believes in this idea that the trinity is derived from paganism your bound to get one of these things.

- They don't understand the trinity- They have no primary pre Christian sources- They only have internet references from sites that spout the same thing that zeitgeist does- They don't know the difference between a group of three gods and a trinity.

That last one is the most common, more often than not they will point to the trimutri or something similar, three gods who seemed to hang out and say that its a trinity. Typically its good to point out; Okay, so where is the evidence that these three were considered to have shared the same substance? Because we aren't talking about three entities but one entity with God. They can only after this point repeat their claims.

NOTE: While this site does contain some useful information, I would be cautious when browsing through it because it has a lot of polemics against Orthodoxy/Catholicism.

« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 03:12:59 AM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice.

Two things. Firstly, techically, the logic behind it IS actually similar to some forms of paganism--but in no way was it influenced by that paganism. The paganism which I refer to is Hinduism, the whole relationship between the Brahman is similar to the Trinity. All of the gods and material world are a part of the Brahman, yet at the same time, they are also distinct--just like the Trinity. However, early Christianity had NO contact with Hinduism, so anyone claiming that it did would have to provide good evidence--and that brings me onto my second point. A statement without evidence to support it can be rejected without evidence. The burden of proof is on them. They are the ones proving that the Trinity is pagan in origin. If they can't provide evidence to support it, then it can be discarded as a mere opinion.

All of the gods and material world are a part of the Brahman, yet at the same time, they are also distinct--just like the Trinity.

The major difference is that the Trinity didn't start with "tres hypostasia, homoousios" or whatever. It started with God and his Word and his Spirit. The Nicene creed wasn't trying to define the Trinity, just rule out heresy.

Logged

Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Thats a point to be made against people who suggest this pagan parrelel buisness in general. They assume that if there is a story or belief which is pre Christian that matches or is close to what Christianity believes therefore Christianity stole from it, it's idea. Despite the fact they can't explain how such a belief travelled and became intermingled with the Christian communties.

The paganism which I refer to is Hinduism, the whole relationship between the Brahman is similar to the Trinity. All of the gods and material world are a part of the Brahman, yet at the same time, they are also distinct--just like the Trinity.

The paganism which I refer to is Hinduism, the whole relationship between the Brahman is similar to the Trinity. All of the gods and material world are a part of the Brahman, yet at the same time, they are also distinct--just like the Trinity.

The paganism which I refer to is Hinduism, the whole relationship between the Brahman is similar to the Trinity. All of the gods and material world are a part of the Brahman, yet at the same time, they are also distinct--just like the Trinity.

The paganism which I refer to is Hinduism, the whole relationship between the Brahman is similar to the Trinity. All of the gods and material world are a part of the Brahman, yet at the same time, they are also distinct--just like the Trinity.

I think the claim of "pagan" Trinitarian origins has two parts: (1) the claim that the idea of Three Persons who are equally God has a "pagan" origin; and (2) the more general claim that the idea that the Divine Person (Creator of Cosmos) can become, or has become, human, has "pagan" origin.

Spermatikos Logos

The Trinity does have some huge differences with neoplatonism though. And even then the founder of neoplatonism, Ammonius Saccas, was a christian.

This is less than true in a few ways.

The origins of "neoplatonic" thought didn't arise from a "founder" in any real sense. If you were to offer a place where neoplatonism finds itself proper, you would begin with Plotinus.

The whole idea that Plotinus was educated by a Christian named Ammonius is not well sourced and probably if it were true that a Ammonius taught Plotinus it certainly wasn't a Christian.

To be sure, early Church theology toiled and unfortunately still does today under the burden of the odd marriage of Plato and Aristotle.

But one must give the devil his due and neoplatonism in no defensible sense was founded by a "Christian".

The paganism which I refer to is Hinduism, the whole relationship between the Brahman is similar to the Trinity. All of the gods and material world are a part of the Brahman, yet at the same time, they are also distinct--just like the Trinity.

But the material world isn't part of the Trinity.

Since the Incarnation, it is.

Oh well, forgot about that.

Don't. It is great material to use against these folks who talk about God never changing.

The paganism which I refer to is Hinduism, the whole relationship between the Brahman is similar to the Trinity. All of the gods and material world are a part of the Brahman, yet at the same time, they are also distinct--just like the Trinity.

But the material world isn't part of the Trinity.

Since the Incarnation, it is.

Oh well, forgot about that.

Don't. It is great material to use against these folks who talk about God never changing.

God didn't change when He became Incarnate.

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice.

The paganism which I refer to is Hinduism, the whole relationship between the Brahman is similar to the Trinity. All of the gods and material world are a part of the Brahman, yet at the same time, they are also distinct--just like the Trinity.

But the material world isn't part of the Trinity.

Since the Incarnation, it is.

Oh well, forgot about that.

Don't. It is great material to use against these folks who talk about God never changing.

God didn't change when He became Incarnate.

Yes. In fact, your sentence makes zero sense.

Get over Plato.

It's OK.

God changes. I've been through this over and over on this board and there is really no Scriptural basis when taken on the whole to believe that God doesn't change.

And people don't understand their apophatic language which is dwarfed by cataphatic language and get stuck with these odd notions.

EDIT: I am not going to hash this out again. Besides you don't have the temperament for it. Just pointing the importance of such moments when the Orthodox who dig their heels in about their unknowable, unchanging God and say He is knowable and changing. It is sorta the whole point of the Incarnation, knowing, changing. Anyhoo.

EDIT: I am not going to hash this out again. Besides you don't have the temperament for it. Just pointing the importance of such moments when the Orthodox who dig their heels in about their unknowable, unchanging God and say He is knowable and changing. It is sorta the whole point of the Incarnation, knowing, changing. Anyhoo.

Fine. I'm not interested in having a discussion with you, anyway.

« Last Edit: November 18, 2012, 08:06:09 AM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice.